Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (8666)	2/7/2002 9:17:26 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

I do not hold DMX, but have been following it for several months as I am intrigued by its potential. I am just starting to follow the nuances of the debate herein. As it is a new approach, and not yet clinically verified--(or only partially so), dissent is to be tolerated and encouraged, it helps the truth of the matter come out. IF everything you guys said was true the stock would already be at $100 a share. So let the detractors have their day. Challenge them with facts where appropriate. Save the editorializing--your bias is showing.

To: axial who wrote (8666)	2/7/2002 10:01:03 PM
From: Montana Wildhack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Jim, Note that DMX expects to respond within 15 days. Whatever it is HC is asking for will only take 2 weeks to put together and send. I'm curious as to what this is that holds up HC for 1 1/2 years to ask for and 15 days to respond to. HC is the organization that reviewed the first phase III, then authorized an extensive phase IV which Dimethaid ended, and after that asked for another phase III. The irresponsibility is staggering and the process is not only inefficient - but punitive. I suppose there's hope that recently the problems at HC have been discussed publicly. Lets see what happens. Wolf

To: axial who wrote (8666)	2/7/2002 11:03:23 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14101

"The meaning is ambiguous. From my research, it is entirely possible that REK has been privately notified by the FDA, at this point, but has not yet received the report. However, the words do not say the inspection was successful, they say that the inspection's completion was successful: that is, the inspection was not cut short, or terminated. Rather, it ran its whole length." Jim, here is my take on the inspection semantics. what would be "successful" about completing the inspection? If the inspection was completed, it is merely "complete," not "successful." If the reality is that they are still waiting on a decision, the word "completion" would have been 100% sufficient, and the use of the adjective "successful" would be superfluous and gratuitous. If this was the case, then it's use in that context could be considered legally misleading and misrepresentative. I don't think this would fall under the protection of the "forward looking" disclaimer, and would land Rebecca in a lot of deep do-do if the FDA were to then have a problem with the plant. The sentence conveys a message of approval, and Rebecca as a lawyer would know that the technicals of semantics are secondary to the generally understood meaning as would be interpreted by it's target audience (ie. the shareholders). I'm not sure the legal jargon for this principle, but I know that technical legal speak cannot be used to justify the misrepresentation of an overt public message. Maybe somebody can help me with this ("loyer" over on SH?). joe ps. comon HC, either $hit or get off the "pot" !